I would love a new options for rangers. Since second editon on the ranger class has been ... altered to be able to produce Drizzt clones. I dislike that greatly. Now they add the ability to make Legolass/Robin Hood. And that is better but more could be done. See Drizzt was not a two weapon fighter because he was a Ranger, he was one because he was Drow. Stop forcing all melee minded Rangers to be clone of a one of a kind guy.

Allow a more choice. Great weapon Ranger. Using feats like Power Attack, Cleave, Sunder, and the like instead of the two weapon choices. Even throw in medium armor so a ranger with moderate to even poor dex can be made viable.

Honor the 1st ed ranger, add in a great weapon ranger who hunts giants with his great sword wearing chainmail and trading blows in a truly epic battle.

Just a thought and I don't think it would unbalance anything. Otherwise I have been reading pathfinder and loving it. I am trying to get my group to give it a try as well. Thanks for your time in reading this. It matters to me, but maybe not other that I can build a more Strider like ranger.

I would love a new options for rangers. Since second editon on the ranger class has been ... altered to be able to produce Drizzt clones. I dislike that greatly. Now they add the ability to make Legolass/Robin Hood. And that is better but more could be done. See Drizzt was not a two weapon fighter because he was a Ranger, he was one because he was Drow. Stop forcing all melee minded Rangers to be clone of a one of a kind guy.

Allow a more choice. Great weapon Ranger. Using feats like Power Attack, Cleave, Sunder, and the like instead of the two weapon choices. Even throw in medium armor so a ranger with moderate to even poor dex can be made viable.

Honor the 1st ed ranger, add in a great weapon ranger who hunts giants with his great sword wearing chainmail and trading blows in a truly epic battle.

Just a thought and I don't think it would unbalance anything. Otherwise I have been reading pathfinder and loving it. I am trying to get my group to give it a try as well. Thanks for your time in reading this. It matters to me, but maybe not other that I can build a more Strider like ranger.

((Sorry I know I put this elsewhere but I think it belongs here.))

I'm with you. Never played 1st, and I only played 2nd a time or two so I'm not sure how they were. But personally I've always hated combat style. It tends to put every ranger into one of two boxes. I've houseruled combat style out of my game, and have supplemented it with fighter bonus feats for the time being. Not sure what else to swap it out for.

To be honest, I've always felt the Scout captured the essence of a ranger more than the ranger class. Give the scout Tracking and Survival, and he's a really good ranger (sans favored enemy). Maybe an alternate build Ranger with increased movement and skirmish in place of fighting style?

I think D&D, and also many videogames such as Everquest (et. al.) forget what "ranger" means.

There is a dual meaning here.

The concept of using "ranged" weapons, to attack at "range", and hence be a "ranger" is tempting. But that's not what a "ranger" is.

And yet every video game on the market with "rangers" gives them tons of bow skills and very little else.

D&D is little better.

At least in D&D they get a few foresty things.

Dual-wielding is no more a forte of "rangers" than it is of anyone else.

Who is the iconical literary ranger?

Aragorn, in the lord of the rings.

Ever see him use a bow? Ever see him dual-wield?

A "ranger" should be the quintessential "outdoorsman". Guide, tracker, geographer, explorer.

He should know more about the great outdoors, and be more at home in the great outdoors, than anyone else except druids.

He should have skills and class abilities to reflect this, like Survival, Tracking, Knowledge(Nature), Knowldege(Geography), etc. Animal companion is nice too.

And D&D rangers have this.

But this whole masters of dual-wielding is silly. And masters of ranged combat is silly too.

Sure, a ranger would hunt for his food. He would defend himself from monsters, and even hunt and eradicate threatening monsters and dangerous wild animals.

Consequently, he would likely be good with a bow. But so would be fighters, barbarians, and rogues too, and even Warriors and Experts, if they spend much time outdoors, or hunt for their food or their living, or enlist as archers in an army, or simply want to be proficient with bows.

There are quite a few 3rd party alternate ranger combat tracks out there, but it would have been nice to see more tracks in PFRPG. I like the fact that there is now a choice of feats within the tracks now. I'm pleased with the PFRPG ranger.

Of course it's pretty straight forward to add alternate ranger combat tracks to a home game.

Personally, I wouldn't be at all unhappy if the combat styles were removed. Theres already plenty of ways for a character to focus on a specific fighting style, so I never understood why it should be hard-built into a class like the ranger. If anything, the "Combat Styles" should really be somthing given to a fighter instead.

But what Combat Styles really do is give a few bonus feats, which Fighters already have... in spades. But the Rangers Combat Style feats must be chosen from a very limited list.

I would have actually liked to see the bases opened up a bit here and given Rangers a 2 handed style as well as a sword and board option to choose from. In fact that will be a given in my campaigns. Maybe even a 1 weapon style as well.

I suppose what I meant is that I wouldn't mind if fighter's got those in place of bonus feats (actually...I wish the fighter would get somthing, I really don't like more feats as a class feature).

But well...even then, the ranger just doesn't suit those at all...why should a ranger get those combat feats for free? Knightly paladin's don't get free sword and broad feats, rogues don't gain skill focus (stealth) for free, so I never really understood why this class should get feats which shoe-horn them into specific play-styles. After all, no one would say "I wish rangers got two-handed or sheilds benifits" if they didn't gain these extra benifits from two-weapon fighting and using ranged weapons.

And that is better but more could be done. See Drizzt was not a two weapon fighter because he was a Ranger, he was one because he was Drow. Stop forcing all melee minded Rangers to be clone of a one of a kind guy.

You really need to look up the word "clone". Is every wizard a Gandalf clone because he kinda does magic? Is everyone with a big weapon a Conan clone?

Of course not.

And not every character that uses two weapons is a Drizzt clone. Not every character that uses two scimitars is a Drizzt clone. Not every drow is a Drizzt clone. A drow ranger that uses two scimitars... well that's a relative. Not even a close one. Definetly not a clone yet.

You'll have to do the good drow thing. The resenting your own race thing. The whole angst thing. And everything else.

If you don't like Drizzt, fine. But lay off the crusade. You sound like those B.A.D.D. people.

Thurgon wrote:

Allow a more choice. Great weapon Ranger. Using feats like Power Attack, Cleave, Sunder, and the like instead of the two weapon choices. Even throw in medium armor so a ranger with moderate to even poor dex can be made viable.

Seriously: Play a fighter. Being able to specialise in every conceivable fighting style is more of a fighter's stick.

The Ranger is about specialising in fighting against certain types of enemies, which you can choose, fighting in certain environments, which you can also choose, being a hunter and man of nature, a scout and stalker and tracker, and so on.

The archery style is thrown in because it fits the woodsman theme, and the two-weapon fighting style theme is there for old time's sake (and because PF doesn't want to subtract choices), but I don't think there will be two dozen different fighting styles for rangers.

And I wouldn't add heavier armour, because a ranger doesn't trample around in the forest, agonizingly slow and making enough noise to wake the dead.

Aragorn probably was more a ranger/fighter in D&D terms than a pure ranger.

One of the big traps you can walk into: put too much stock in names and descriptions. A Ranger isn't always a ranger and vice versa.

It's even more obvious in the case of assassins. What is an assassin? Someone with levels in the PrC? Or just someone who kills people for money? Is there anyone keeping you from being a killer for hire before you get Death Attack? And if you do get death attack, what's keeping you from secretly gathering information while posing as someone else?

mdt wrote:

Maybe an alternate build Ranger with increased movement and skirmish in place of fighting style?

Sure. Minus the skirmish, of course. Trying to get rid of the old "full attacks standing in place are badwrongfun" by forcing people to move never sat well with me.

Sure. Minus the skirmish, of course. Trying to get rid of the old "full attacks standing in place are badwrongfun" by forcing people to move never sat well with me.

But the new vital strike might work.

Well,

If you were going to do an alternate build for a ranger with no favored enemy, no animal companion, and no spells, I would see nothing wrong with:

Skirmish
Woodland Stride

And then adding the ability perform a full attack while moving. The skirmish damage applied to any attack where at least 10 feet of movement occurred prior to the attack. So, if you had 3 attacks, you could get skirmish on all 3 of them (assuming you had 30 feet of movement and was within 30 feet of your target).

Additional movement would give more skirmish attacks. Assuming a 30 foot movement ranger/scout had +10 movement from items at level 20, a +2d6 weapon (say, short bow of sonic frost), then at level 20 they could do :

Or, 8d6 per attack. Say an average of 8d6 + 6d6 + 4d6 + 2d6 (to represent how often they hit on average) and you have them doing :
28 + 21 + 14 + 7 = 70 pts of damage per round (not including any damage enhancements from the bow, or from str (if it's a composite)). That's not at all unreasonable compared to a fighter or rogue of the same level. I think it would scale about the same all the way back down to a single attack per round (compared to a rogue or fighter).

If you don't like Drizzt, fine. But lay off the crusade. You sound like those B.A.D.D. people.

Brothers Against Drizzt Do'Urden?

Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons. An "organisation" formed by a mother whose son had commited suicide - shot himself with a loaded gun found at their home. And because he played D&D, she did the sensible thing - she blamed everything on the game, which promotes satanism and all that evil stuff. Nevermind that the guy had serious problems in life, if you blame a game, you don't have to blame yourself.

She started by suing her son's school and TSR, and when the courts dismessed the cases, she started her witch hunt, with all the objectivity you'd expect from someone who believes in actual demons putting actual suicide curses on depressed school kids who think life is a joke (he wrote that onto the blackboard not long prior to his suicide)

If you don't like Drizzt, fine. But lay off the crusade. You sound like those B.A.D.D. people.

It's got nothing to do with Drizzt, truly I like the character, I enjoyed the books. However he was an exception and should never have been used as the rule for rangers in any edition of D&D. The fact he was an exception was part of his character, what 2ed did was foolish in the extreme.

KaeYoss wrote:

Seriously: Play a fighter. Being able to specialise in every conceivable fighting style is more of a fighter's stick.

The Ranger is about specialising in fighting against certain types of enemies, which you can choose, fighting in certain environments, which you can also choose, being a hunter and man of nature, a scout and stalker and tracker, and so on.

The archery style is thrown in because it fits the woodsman theme, and the two-weapon fighting style theme is there for old time's sake (and because PF doesn't want to subtract choices), but I don't think there will be two dozen different fighting styles for rangers.

And I wouldn't add heavier armour, because a ranger doesn't trample around in the forest, agonizingly slow and making enough noise to wake the dead.

Aragorn probably was more a ranger/fighter in D&D terms than a pure ranger....

Two weapon fighting isn't about old time, it's about silly time. In other words 2ed's silly change to the ranger. Old time is 1st ed and in 1st ed he was very much built around the image of Aragorn. Less scout more tracker, survialist, knight of the woods. He wore heavy armor like a fighter, but was more specialized at fighting his foe of choice (back then giant types).

A ranger in my game might not patrol in heavy plate armor around the woods, but he can use it when it's time to get serious. A ranger is a protector, a defender, and able to adapt to different situations in the wild. Sure some situations call for light armor fast moving, others call for heavy armor and the ability to stand and deliever.

Personally I'd drop the two weapon fighting style, but I can live with having more then two styles instead. You choose a style like you choose a favored foe. It specializes the ranger further. The fighter remians the combat king, he will have a ton more feats making him more able to go to the extreme in one style or be able to do many styles. It also means that rangers need the same stats fighters do to qualify for a style so rangers wont be able to use styles the fighter with the same stats couldn't. I have never liked the ranger being able to get around stat requirements for feats and I would personally remove that.

It's got nothing to do with Drizzt, truly I like the character, I enjoyed the books. However he was an exception and should never have been used as the rule for rangers in any edition of D&D. The fact he was an exception was part of his character, what 2ed did was foolish in the extreme.

Exactly how I've always felt. Drizzt is actually a pretty cool concept, but Bob Salvatore freely admits that he made a literary character not a D&D Player Character. He was never conformed to the rules of the game. The biggest problem with FR (IMO) is that whatever was written in the books had to be accounted for in the rules. Giving game stats to book characters sucks.

It's got nothing to do with Drizzt, truly I like the character, I enjoyed the books. However he was an exception and should never have been used as the rule for rangers in any edition of D&D. The fact he was an exception was part of his character, what 2ed did was foolish in the extreme.

You did use the C-word to describe two-weapon fighting rangers.

Thurgon wrote:

Two weapon fighting isn't about old time, it's about silly time.

Doesn't matter. 3e had two-weapon fighting rangers, which means PF will have two-weapon fighting rangers, since they don't subtract.

Maybe they'll change it in PF2.0. Or maybe not. Regardless of whether you think it's silly or not, it has been part of the ranger identity for quite some time now, and the smart thing is to kill something like that only if the reasons are really good.

I don't think the reasons for it are really good: It's not mandatory, so you don't have to use it, but it does enable others who don't think it's silly to use it.

Thurgon wrote:

In other words 2ed's silly change to the ranger. Old time is 1st ed

That's ancient history. 2e is history. 3.0 is old times.

It all depends on your point of view.

Some people started playing with 1e. Some with 3.5.

Thurgon wrote:

in 1st ed he was very much built around the image of Aragorn. Less scout more tracker, survialist, knight of the woods.

Personally, I don't like rangers as "knight of the woods". They're not knights. They're rangers.

I just can't see them in bulky armour, on a horse, jousting it out on a clearing.

Thurgon wrote:

A ranger in my game might not patrol in heavy plate armor around the woods, but he can use it when it's time to get serious. A ranger is a protector, a defender, and able to adapt to different situations in the wild.

Then change the class in your game. It doesn't really fit the general ranger image. They don't stash heavy armour under trees and such.

If they want more fighter, they can freely multiclass.

Thurgon wrote:

Sure some situations call for light armor fast moving, others call for heavy armor and the ability to stand and deliever.

Other situations call for massive application of positive energy to eradicate undead, and still other situations require the application of copious amount of elemental magic to decimate armies.

Yet the ranger won't get all class abilities from clerics, wizards and/or druids.

The biggest problem with FR (IMO) is that whatever was written in the books had to be accounted for in the rules. Giving game stats to book characters sucks.

Well, in the golden age of 3e, it became easy enough to do so.

Example: Drizzt. Before, they had to break the rules for him left and right: He was a ranger who started as a fighter and later switched careers. In the bad old days, only a human could do so. But in 3e, they could model his stats to his CV: He started as a fighter, later survived in the wilderness and became a primal destroyer, and finally learned rangering. Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger. BAM! The rules allow you to model the character, even if it's something crazy.

Of course, one day they decided to do it the other way around. Ripped the Realms apart to make it fit the rules. What happened to Drizzt there, anyway`? Hit by one of the big rolls that fell on everyone and made him forget his past so he's just a ranger now?

The biggest problem with FR (IMO) is that whatever was written in the books had to be accounted for in the rules. Giving game stats to book characters sucks.

Well, in the golden age of 3e, it became easy enough to do so.

Easy to do doesn't mean it's right. My point is that Salvatore did not sit down and stat out Drizzt and say 'ok, here is my character that I'm writing about'. People coming along afterwards and doing so are going to do whatever it takes to shoehorn the character into a 2ed or 3.5 template whether he really fits or not.

It's one thing to take game characters and write a book about them, but it really doesn't work in reverse.

Doesn't matter. 3e had two-weapon fighting rangers, which means PF will have two-weapon fighting rangers, since they don't subtract.

Maybe they'll change it in PF2.0. Or maybe not. Regardless of whether you think it's silly or not, it has been part of the ranger identity for quite some time now, and the smart thing is to kill something like that only if the reasons are really good.

I don't think the reasons for it are really good: It's not mandatory, so you don't have to use it, but it does enable others who don't think it's silly to use it.

Just because someone might think it isn't silly, really doesn't change the fact that it is silly. The inclusion of two weapon fighting to rangers was done for stupid reasons. Argue or debate that all you like. You're wrong, end of story. It was done because of a character who fought with two weapons not because he was a ranger as 2ed's writer thought but because he was a drow. A mistake that has been carried on ever since. No need to leave that mistake in the game any longer.

You are choosing to define rangers based on 2ed and on terms, fine. But it is far from the only definition, look at DM Blake's post above, it is far more complete look at the definition.

But I am not even arguing that two weapon fighting needs to go, I am saying the choice of weapon styles needs to expand because right now it doesn't cover the topic enough nor allow the flexiblity it should.

KaeYoss wrote:

Personally, I don't like rangers as "knight of the woods". They're not knights. They're rangers.

I just can't see them in bulky armour, on a horse, jousting it out on a clearing.

You don't have to like it. But back in the old days that was their title at one level, Ranger Knight.

The inclusion of two weapon fighting to rangers was done for stupid reasons. Argue or debate that all you like. You're wrong, end of story. It was done because of a character who fought with two weapons not because he was a ranger as 2ed's writer thought but because he was a drow. A mistake that has been carried on ever since. No need to leave that mistake in the game any longer.

Actully, drow are no more prone to ambidexterity than any other race. Even the Do'Urdon house weapon master was astonished by what Drizzt could do.

Quote:

But I am not even arguing that two weapon fighting needs to go, I am saying the choice of weapon styles needs to expand because right now it doesn't cover the topic enough nor allow the flexiblity it should.

Yeah, I don't get you guys. It's easy to make anything you want within the rules. Back in the old days (1st ed)a "Ranger" had druid and magic user spells, and could use big heavy armor and whatever. This stuff is all easy to accomplish with the 3.5 system. It's clunky and whatever, but the thing I like about it, is that if you know the system well, I can create whatever I want. An old school bard with druid magic? Done. A Ranger who uses heavy armor, and can cast druid and wizard spells.. sure! Maybe with a little tweaking and stuff, but it's all doable. 1st ed Ranger never made much sense, guys, I must say. Why in the world would he cast wizard spells... but he did!

The bard too... start off as a thief, learn fighting (but don't practice your thief skills for god sake as a fighter, or you won't gain XP!), then transition into Bard with Druidic spellcasting.

Actully, drow are no more prone to ambidexterity than any other race. Even the Do'Urdon house weapon master was astonished by what Drizzt could do.

That's because Salvatore wasn't basing his character closely on the 1e rules. While the Fiend Folio description of the Drow does not include the term ambidextrous, it does say that they are "highly coordinated, able to use either or both hands/arms for attack and defense". That's pretty much ambidextrous as far as combat goes and that's good enough for me.

Salvatore, however, decided to make that a point of difference for Drizzt in his version of the Drow. And it appears that TSR may have followed suit. I didn't read it exactly, but the 2e Monstrous Compendium write up on the Drow, while very much like the 1e write up, appears to leave out that mention of being able to use either or both hands for attack and defense and being highly coordinated.

That's because Salvatore wasn't basing his character closely on the 1e rules. While the Fiend Folio description of the Drow does not include the term ambidextrous, it does say that they are "highly coordinated, able to use either or both hands/arms for attack and defense". That's pretty much ambidextrous as far as combat goes and that's good enough for me.

Salvatore, however, decided to make that a point of difference for Drizzt in his version of the Drow. And it appears that TSR may have followed suit. I didn't read it exactly, but the 2e Monstrous Compendium write up on the Drow, while very much like the 1e write up, appears to leave out that mention of being able to use either or both hands for attack and defense and being highly coordinated.

The biggest problem with FR (IMO) is that whatever was written in the books had to be accounted for in the rules. Giving game stats to book characters sucks.

Well, in the golden age of 3e, it became easy enough to do so.

Example: Drizzt. Before, they had to break the rules for him left and right: He was a ranger who started as a fighter and later switched careers. In the bad old days, only a human could do so. But in 3e, they could model his stats to his CV: He started as a fighter, later survived in the wilderness and became a primal destroyer, and finally learned rangering. Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger. BAM! The rules allow you to model the character, even if it's something crazy.

Of course, one day they decided to do it the other way around. Ripped the Realms apart to make it fit the rules. What happened to Drizzt there, anyway`? Hit by one of the big rolls that fell on everyone and made him forget his past so he's just a ranger now?

That was also before the prestige classes came out though. Iono, to me they seemd to create the dervish very much around how they described Drizzt fighting at times. He seemed to use his scimitars with more grace then rage ... that was until he DID rage of course. And even still I'm not convinced with the whole barbarian thing.

As for what Drizzt is now? I'd put my money on a Skirmisher. He's an NPC and no NPC gets a class. They get those other messed up labels ... whatever the hell THATS about. Hell even Jarlaxle is a skirmisher now ... tch.

ANYWAY all this is beside the point (though I liked to think about it anyway).

The point is that honestly, I think the Ranger sits fine right now as is. The combat Style's they are giving you ... well you don't ALWAYS have to focus on one or the other. If you wanted to specialize around two handed weapons though, whats wrong with dropping those feats into archery for those "just in case moments" or do two weapon fighting and pick up shield bash for sword and board or just for those times you might want to use two weapons.

If you don't like looking at it as a speciality, just write it off as an option in the background should you need it.

Personally though, I like the ranger as it is. To me it fits it's role and it does it rather well. Some people might like the thought of a Scout over a Ranger ... well fine, then be a scout. No one's stopping you.

To me, Rangers using bows just makes sense giving being out in the wilderness and the open. As for the duel wielding thing, I also feel (despite if it was made for Drizzt) that it also FITS the natural world. You have things like tigers or bears that have two claw attacks. I kind of see this as the same thing. The ranger is so in touch with nature that he fights LIKE it.

I'd be a bit sad to see the current ranger get changed too much. I really kind of dig it myself.

And in the new days, titles are gone. And rangers in heavy armour are gone.

In my opinion, that concept doesn't fit the ranger, and I think Jason and the other designers agree.

You can think that if you like. Fact is we don't know what Jason would have done were he able to design from the ground up, being bound by backwards compatibility however, requires that things not be too different from their base.

Not that I disagree about the heavy armor, I just don't think you should be making claims of their agreement with you based on designs they couldn't change to drastically.

The inclusion of two weapon fighting to rangers was done for stupid reasons. Argue or debate that all you like. You're wrong, end of story. It was done because of a character who fought with two weapons not because he was a ranger as 2ed's writer thought but because he was a drow. A mistake that has been carried on ever since. No need to leave that mistake in the game any longer.

Actully, drow are no more prone to ambidexterity than any other race. Even the Do'Urdon house weapon master was astonished by what Drizzt could do.

Untrue. First ed, Fiend Folo all Drow were ambidexterous. This is in their write up in Unearth Arcana for 1st ed as a PC race: Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand.

Darkwolf wrote:

Thurgon wrote:

But I am not even arguing that two weapon fighting needs to go, I am saying the choice of weapon styles needs to expand because right now it doesn't cover the topic enough nor allow the flexiblity it should.

You can think that if you like. Fact is we don't know what Jason would have done were he able to design from the ground up, being bound by backwards compatibility however, requires that things not be too different from their base.

Maybe *you* don't know. Because *you* didn't have one of your Associates pick apart his brain to divine his intentions....

Darkwolf wrote:

Not that I disagree about the heavy armor, I just don't think you should be making claims of their agreement with you based on designs they couldn't change to drastically.

It was a guess. I didn't claim otherwise.

However, I found myself agreeing with most changes that we know about in PF (alpha, beta and final), and had several suggestions I made answered with, essentially, "that's a lot like how things will be done in the final rules", so my guess is their idea for this isn't radically different from mine.

Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand. They cannot use a shield when performing this type of combat, but may use a spiked buckler as one of their two weapons.

That's 1985 by the way. Drizzt showed up January 1988 if I'm not mistaken, with 2nd edition coming 1989. I'm not sure he can be blamed for rangers either, but he certainly can't be blamed for the Drow.

Untrue. First ed, Fiend Folo all Drow were ambidexterous. This is in their write up in Unearth Arcana for 1st ed as a PC race: Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand.

Yeah, I was corrected up thread, it has been too long since I played 1ed. :(

But, as I said this really only further illustrates my point that Salvatore was not 'playing by the rules' when he created Drizzt.

Yeah, I don't get you guys. It's easy to make anything you want within the rules. Back in the old days (1st ed)a "Ranger" had druid and magic user spells, and could use big heavy armor and whatever. This stuff is all easy to accomplish with the 3.5 system. It's clunky and whatever, but the thing I like about it, is that if you know the system well, I can create whatever I want. An old school bard with druid magic? Done. A Ranger who uses heavy armor, and can cast druid and wizard spells.. sure! Maybe with a little tweaking and stuff, but it's all doable. 1st ed Ranger never made much sense, guys, I must say. Why in the world would he cast wizard spells... but he did!

The bard too... start off as a thief, learn fighting (but don't practice your thief skills for god sake as a fighter, or you won't gain XP!), then transition into Bard with Druidic spellcasting.

The first ed bard was more a Celtic Druid then the minstrel he became in second ed. That is the reason for the druid spells, and the reason for the varied training starting with fighter then to thief then to actual bard. Historically you could not be a druid unless you were an accomplished warrior and scout, the closest class to scout I guess they figured was thief. Since humans could not be multi-classed they had to be dual. Oddly humans and half-elves could be bards only, but half-elves could not dual class so in effect could not qualify without some rules twisting. It’s a lot of reaching around to get to were you want to, I really like the PrC bard I think in the new Unearthed Arcana, it brings much of that old flavor back while doing it in a more sensible manner. 1st ed wasn’t perfect to be sure, but it still had a ton of play in it and was by far the most popular system of D&D ever.

Untrue. First ed, Fiend Folo all Drow were ambidexterous. This is in their write up in Unearth Arcana for 1st ed as a PC race: Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand.

Yeah, I was corrected up thread, it has been too long since I played 1ed. :(

But, as I said this really only further illustrates my point that Salvatore was not 'playing by the rules' when he created Drizzt.

I am glad he did not make Drizzt by the rules. That is too restrictive in building a great story and character, I enjoyed the first sets of books much and was glad he did it like he did.

I really like the PrC bard I think in the new Unearthed Arcana, it brings much of that old flavor back while doing it in a more sensible manner. 1st ed wasn’t perfect to be sure, but it still had a ton of play in it and was by far the most popular system of D&D ever.

Those PrC's in there were rather neat. And, while I do think it's incredibly broken, the Fochluchan Lyricist PRC does an eminent job at bringing back that "let's take a whole bunch of classes and smoosh them together with crazy prerequisites" feel too.

I really like the PrC bard I think in the new Unearthed Arcana, it brings much of that old flavor back while doing it in a more sensible manner. 1st ed wasn’t perfect to be sure, but it still had a ton of play in it and was by far the most popular system of D&D ever.

Those PrC's in there were rather neat. And, while I do think it's incredibly broken, the Fochluchan Lyricist PRC does an eminent job at bringing back that "let's take a whole bunch of classes and smoosh them together with crazy prerequisites" feel too.

A DM I once had never allowed you to start play as a paladin, he thought that class was so special you had to earn your place. 3.X really made that work, and that PrC Paladin was great for it.